The sponsors have paid the agreed consideration to the Appellant for getting their names added to the name of the tournaments and acquiring rights to display their logos and advertise their products through the tournaments. Appellants can not be said to have provided event Management service to the Sponsors. The Appellants, by organizing the golf tournaments, the commercial rights of which can be exploited by the Appellants, have provided the event management service to themselves and therefore, the same would not attract any service tax.

knowhow fee or royalty paid to a company for right to use the technology developed by that company, is merely a transaction in intellectual property, not a consultancy or advice and therefore service tax under “consulting engineer’s service” head would not be attracted

Larger Bench: the date of commencement of liability of the recipient of taxable service provided by a person who is a non-resident or is from outside India, and does not have any office in India to pay service tax

there was no valid reason for the appellate Commissioner to hold that, a sole-proprietory concern was not a commercial concern, and therefore, service tax was not leviable when taxable service was provided by a proprietory concern

concern in its ordinary dictionary meaning would mean business of somebody hence concern in the context of business run by sole proprietor means business of such sole proprietary concern. As the activity undertaken by the assessee was a commercial activity, therefore, are liable to pay Service Tax

Since the Service Tax law provides for payment of service tax on the gross amount charged, the appellant's plea that the gross amount recovered should be considered as inclusive of service tax is not tenable and is not accepted. The Explanation 2 added to Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 10.9.2004 cannot be applied retrospectively

Activity of undertaking 'Turnkey Projects' involving designing, supply, installation and commissioning of fire safety and protection systems is taxable under the category of 'Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services' only w.e.f. 16.06.2005.

Even if a case of suppression of facts or contravention of any provision were made out, it is clear that suppression or contravention per se would not justify imposition of penalty unless it was made intentionally in order to evade payment of duty

C&F Operations’ cannot be dissected into ‘Clearing’ and ‘Forwarding’ as they fall in the common category and hence all or any of the services of that category will be services provided by a ‘C&F Agent’, connected with ‘C&F Operations’ and would attract levy of service tax under Section 65(23)

Appellants received Architect’s services from M/s Callison Architecture Inc., U.S.A., who do not have any office or business establishment in India and whether the Appellants, as recipient of a taxable service from an offshore service provider are liable, in term of Rule 2 (1) (d) (iv) of the Serviced Tax Rules, 1994, to pay service tax

Larger Bench Whether the assessee is entitled to take cenvat credit on the basis of supplementary invoice of the manufacturer in case additional duty of excise is paid suo motu on receipt of the show cause notice alleging wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of the provisions of the Central Excise Act or the Rules with intent to evade duty invoking proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 11A of the Act?

Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules would be applicable only when the excisable goods are not sold but are cleared for captive consumption but this rule would not be applicable where finished products are cleared partly for home consumption and partly for captive consumption and in such a situation, assessable value of the goods cleared for captive consumption shall be at par with the assessable value of goods cleared for home consumption

Larger Bench: even where duty is paid suo motu before finalization of assessment under rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, the manufacturer will be liable to interest on the differential amount of duty

Larger Bench: Employment of outdoor caterer for providing catering services has to be considered as an input service relating to the business and cenvat credit in respect of the same will be admissible.

The invoices were in the name of the appellant. However, the address is different than the registration certificate. Subsequently, the registration certificate was got amended by the appellant and office address on the invoices were also included in the Registration certificate. In these circumstances, the denial of credit of Rs.5,18,027/-, is not sustainable and hence, set aside

The liability to pay income tax arising out of income from the services rendered is on the appellant. The TDS amount deducted was payable only on behalf of the appellant to the Income Tax Department. We do not find any justification to exclude the said amount from the gross amount for the purpose of determining the service tax

Software engineering itself is completely exempt from Service Tax at all times even at present. When software engineering itself is not liable to tax, software testing, which is an integral part for such development, cannot be brought under tax net in the guise of Technical Inspection & Certification service. Moreover, the learned Advocate has clearly distinguished the facts in the case of Tata Consultancy Services (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court was dealing with “canned” software, which was ready for sale off the shelf. However, in the present case, the testing goes hand in hand with the development and this is not a case of “canned” software, which can be treated as “goods”. Therefore, in view of the above, we hold that the demand of Service Tax on software testing in the category of “Technical Inspection & Certification Service” is not correct.

Larger Bench: The provisions of Rules 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 are not applicable when the amount equivalent of the Cenvat Credit attributable to the common inputs used in, or in relation to, the manufacture of exempted final products has been paid prior to the removal of exempted final products from the factory

Larger Bench: “whether theft or dacoity would be unavoidable accident within the meaning of Rule 49 so as to merit remission of excise duty on the goods so lost.”Unlike the Customs Act where there are provisions for remission of duty when the goods are pilfered while in the custody of custodian and with a corresponding provision for demand of duty from the Custodian, Rules 49 and 147 do not cover the cases of pilferage, theft or dacoity.

Larger Bench: “Connectors fitted with wire” are classifiable under sub-heading No.8536.00 of the Tariff as held by the Commissioner (Appeals) and accepted by the Respondent (in short “assessee”) and not under sub-heading No.8544.00 of the Tariff as claimed by the Revenue in their appeal.

Since Rent-a-Cab service is used for bringing employees to work in the factory for manufacture of goods it has to be considered as being used indirectly in relation to the manufacture or as part of business activity for promoting the business as any facility given to the employees will result in greater efficiency and promotion of business.

Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,07,943/- availed by the appellants who are manufacturers of cement, on account of repairs and maintenance of civil construction, etc., in their residential colony during the period from July, 2005 to March, 2006 is allowed

Larger Bench: Whether, during the period March, 1996 to May, 1998, a manufacturer of final product, who procured inputs and availed MODVAT credit thereon, was entitled to remove the inputs as such, without reversal of the credit or payment of equivalent amount of duty, to a 100% EOU under CT-3 certificate in terms of Notification No. 1/95-C.E.

Larger Bench: Whether 'Explanation' added by Notification No. 3/98-Cus., dated 11-2-98 to the entry at S1. No. 173 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 11 197-Cus., dated 1-3-97 is clarificatory of the expression 'computer software' so as to have retrospective effect from 1-3-1997

Larger Bench: In the case of provisional assessment under the Central Excise Rules, 2002 interest is required to be paid from the first day of the month succeeding the month for which such amount is determined.Interest is required to be paid even if the differential amount is paid before the order, under the Rule 7(3) of the said Rules, is issued finalizing the assessment.

Section 4(3)(c) of C.E. Act clearly explains that the place of removal is the premises from where excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory. In the present case, the goods were exported and when export documents are presented to the Customs office, then that is the place of removal as per Section 5 of C.E. Act.

the ownership of the goods remain with the seller till the port area, it can be safely held that all the services availed by the exporter till the port area are required to be considered as input service inasmuch as the same are clearly related to the business activities